[iseason]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

You must remind yourself that Einstein was a scientist with deep roots into the XIX century's conceptual classical physics and its philosophical implications of the epoque.

He contributed to much of the modern physics theory but he was also human and he made some mistakes as we all have in some point of our lives.

Is gravity a real phenomenon? Yes it is. Could we say that planets go around stars because some sort of warping in the fabric of space-time? That is just another possible way to represent in our (limited human minds) something we can observe, measure and predict with our present technology.

Einstein tried to make a parallel between gravity and inertia when he compared a person or object riding inside a falling elevator. He could only relied of human images and he made a great effort to comprehend what was well beyond his grasp.

The eather? do not try to convince your physics professors about its existence, you'll get an "F". Is there some sort of "fluid" or a detectable "plasma-like layer" observable by a way of experiments? There isn't any and that is enough for "them" to classify you among the mistaken beings.

For me, personally of course, the eather is the resulting "topography" due to an unknown processes right in the middle of the sun (stars). Planets are attracted by it and kept rotating on their orbit as long as the star allows them to.

Since the "eather" is made of pure energy-interactions it must be consider a quantum mechanical process in nature, however since planets and moons are real objects with incredibly big masses, they respond to the laws that govern classical physics (Newton's physics).

The "path" of their orbits are built for them at an incredible speed and one velocity that goes beyond their ability to follow. This is why we interpret (Einstein did it for the first time in history) that time and space respond to abrupt topographical changes as we go from one orbit to the next. The planetarium orbits could be consider as huge harmonics in tune with the rotation of the star (you know that the sun's layers rotates right?)

Even our moon is considered to spin around the Earth in one harmonic pattern...interesting isn't it?

Now... I'd like you to think about this for a moment: If those huge planetarium orbits are the one defining what we call "space" or "cosmos" and it is throught out those space that light and other radiation emission travel from one place to the next... isn't it possible that a light beam that happens to travel throught lightyears from one star across star systems and galaxies reaching us after billions of years was affected by not one but millions of orbital changes along its way?

How trusworthy could an expansion or contraction theory be, based on a so-called red-shift phenomenon when considering those variables to exist across the entire universe?

We are full of questions that could only be answered in time. Meanwhile, it will take short steps to change our roots just as Einstein did a long time ago.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

Human by default
I am well aware you are well versed in scientific theory. But differing points of view often help to
Clarify what we already know.
You tell me things that are already known, but these are far outweighed by those that are unknown.
How do we even imagine that the advances we have made from caveman thinking to now be anything at all? It may be one millionth of one percent of the available knowledge we need to understand the universe.
Since we have been speaking, I have been working on concepts that use the original singularity and look at how this can account for the behaviors we see today. The concept uses a rule.
If the first causality were one or singular, then we cannot move away from that original law.
The particle cannot be in two places at once.
The particle cannot “go here or there”. It must occur via reduction.
If only one particle could exist in order for the laws of causality not to be violated, then the singular particle or behavior must create all else. Ergo, most of what we perceive is simply illusion. This is true, as we know but here is a way that the causality laws can remain intact.
Singular Particle theory (God particle if you like)
I first looked at this from the particle being the smallest amount of mass but the highest energy there was. This allowed it to lose energy to mass and create the universe we see today. However, I could not have motion because the particle had no medium through which to move.
Despite this I was convinced that a singular particle was responsible for everything. It needed the right behaviors to enable it to do every conceivable action that we see.I knew that the particle would be both there at the beginning of time and at the end. That it was responsible for the stars on the other side of the galaxy as well as holding us together as complex organisms.
The hit came when I began at a particle the size of the universe instead of the smallest particle. Instead of saying that the smallest particle lost energy to mass, I took the point of view that the occurrence of the smallest particle could be through the reduction of the particle from a universal size to the smallest detectable energy we can perceive. In other words, the Quantum of energy is all that there is.And there is only one of them.
How can this be?
Well, if you spread the amount of energy in a quantum across the universe, then you get the original particle state. By reducing (big bang style) to quantum, the particle creates one occurrence of it self. Repeating this process in differing areas of the universe meant that it took the same process to create each occurrence. Eventually you get a build-up of occurrences that have a distinct timeline, but which has nothing to do with of our current concepts of dimension.
There is no need for it to travel across the universe to ‘occur ‘in order for that to exist. So time does not have anything to do with distance and motion. Only because we measure it this way do we make it so.
What is means?
Is that the chaotic state exists alongside the organized very similarly to random memory of computers. It is not necessary to have the information in a row for a computer to work.
So picture the big bang. But reduce your expectation of it as a big event, but rather picture it as a series of many small occurrences.
Motion
This was where I was stumped by a singular particle. But because the particle or quantum can only occupy a pixel in space once, this is the reason we are travelling through a medium which hasn’t anything in it. As we pass through it, the occurrences of the quantum coincide.
It still leaves me saying that nothing, including light actually moves. It simply transfers to the next occurrence of the quantum.
Cheers
Iseason